memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:El-Auria
Should be a realworld article I get that background sources can be used to name unnamed planets, but no unnamed planet said to be the El-Aurian homeworld has ever been mentioned or alluded to. Making this a textbook unreferenced material case. -- Capricorn (talk) 20:02, December 24, 2016 (UTC) :I couldn't disagree more. Please stop trolling. --Defiant (talk) 20:59, December 24, 2016 (UTC) ::What trolling is going on here? 31dot (talk) 21:05, December 24, 2016 (UTC) :Capricorn being deliberately contrary and inflamatory. He/she hardly makes any posts but contrary ones. Haven't you noticed? --Defiant (talk) 21:06, December 24, 2016 (UTC) ::I decline to evaluate any user's behavior on this page, however I see no obvious trolling here. Instead of accusing others of trolling please respond to their argument on its merits. 31dot (talk) 21:08, December 24, 2016 (UTC) :Okay. In that case, I don't see any merits in his/her argument whatsoever. --Defiant (talk) 21:10, December 24, 2016 (UTC) ::Well, what are the specific references to this planet? 31dot (talk) 21:12, December 24, 2016 (UTC) :Perhaps you should watch to find out? --Defiant (talk) 21:14, December 24, 2016 (UTC) ::Perhaps you should read Talk:El-Aurian#2265?. The Borg did not assimilate/destroy the El-Aurians immediately before Generations. 31dot (talk) 22:27, December 24, 2016 (UTC) :Thanks for that. Didn't realize such a pointless discussion's going on; thanks. :) --Defiant (talk) 22:32, December 24, 2016 (UTC) ::Capricorn would seem to be correct; Generations mentions that Soran "lost his entire family when the Borg destroyed his world";(not mentioning what his world was, unless it was on a graphic). 31dot (talk) 22:32, December 24, 2016 (UTC) :...and? His world is called "E-Auria" in the script. Soran's homeworld is canonically unnamed, so we use that name. Would've thought you'd know that by now! --Defiant (talk) 22:38, December 24, 2016 (UTC) ::The note in the page states that it comes from the first draft of the script. The same note also states that we don't know that his world was the El-Aurian homeworld. 31dot (talk) 22:45, December 24, 2016 (UTC) :The only controversial point should be whether we refer to it, in in-universe info, as "Soran's homeworld" or "the El-Aurian homeworld". I just thought, since the planet's name is El-Auria, it's not much of a leap to call it "the El-Aurian homeworld" in the in-universe content, with a bginfo note explaining more. If the method I've chosen is too non-canonical, it seems a simple change to instead refer to this planet as "Soran's homeworld" in the in-universe info. So, the question is... how should we refer to it: as "Soran's homeworld" or "the El-Aurian homeworld", in the in-universe content? --Defiant (talk) 22:47, December 24, 2016 (UTC) :Perhaps you should also be aware that, if the connection between "El-Auria" being "the El-Aurian homeworld" is ruled to be too noncanonical, other parts start to unravel too, like saying this planet isn't in the El-Aurian system, since we have no direct evidence to prove that either, even though we know, logically, that of course it is. --Defiant (talk) 23:01, December 24, 2016 (UTC) ::You said it, not me. I'm not sure we know that logically, as Earth is not in the Earthian system. 31dot (talk) 23:48, December 24, 2016 (UTC) :Lol. But Terra's in the Terran system. :) --Defiant (talk) 23:51, December 24, 2016 (UTC) ::Another way of looking at this is... your argument only (correctly, I admit) states that just because a planet is in a star system, the system won't necessarily have the same name as the planet. Your argument doesn't state that, if a planet and a system are very closely associated with each other even to the point of having almost identical names, we should assume they might not be actually linked and therefore go out of our way to make them not linked! That sort of seems more speculative, imho, than assuming that they are really linked, especially as this is Star Trek we're dealing with, here. --Defiant (talk) 00:31, December 25, 2016 (UTC) ::In fact, if we were to ask Brannon Braga and/or Ron Moore if the planet El-Auria is the homeworld of the El-Aurians, in the El-Aurian system, or if that planet was meant to be almost entirely unrelated to the other two concepts, but have strange "similarities" to them (such as the strikingly close similarity in names, the fact that an El-Aurian came from El-Auria, and the Borg attacked both), they'd probably laugh at the ridiculousness of how obvious the obvious answer is! :) --Defiant (talk) 00:35, December 25, 2016 (UTC) Ok, good to know that the term El-Auria was used in relation to Soran's world. The article does not remotely make that clear, so I'll sidestep the silly trolling claims and hope you can see my worries weren't that unreasonable. I think the issue that runs through all this is discussion is the unspoken idea that Soran is now almost canonically from "El-Auria". But that's not quite how this acceptable sources thing works: Soran's planet is still canonically unnamed (as it wasn't mentioned on screen), it's just that we now our policies allow us to have "El-Auria" as a placeholder so we don't have to put it on an unnamed planets list. But by saying "Soran is from El-Auria", therefore common sense says "Soran is from the El-Aurian homeworld", we're essentially creating canon by building logic on quicksand. I've made some changes to the article, to first and most importantly clarify in what context El-Auria was used in that script, and secondly try to address the aforementioned issue by erring on the side of caution just a tiny bit more. They're relatively minor changes and I don't think they're too radical. (the radical approach of course would be to look at El-Auria as something from a different version of the story, thus again delegating it to unreferenced material status, separate from Soran's unnamed homeworld - but since Defiant is the only one who's read the script and clearly doesn't see it that way, we can only conclude that that's not the impression the script makes. And that's fine, kinda). Finally, I'm a "he" by the way, might save you a little bit of typing next time you go into attack mode :p -- Capricorn (talk) 14:30, December 25, 2016 (UTC) ::Lol. I don't go "into attack mode", but thanks for your clarifications, re: the canon issue. --Defiant (talk) 14:45, December 25, 2016 (UTC) ::Having said that, I urge you to stop writing incorrect info in articles. doesn't establish that El-Aurians were confined to the El-Aurian system. That'll be why Guinan is aboard the , talking to Picard about her species! (rolls eyes) A simple mistake to make, I assume, as presumably you mean they were confined there during the Borg attack... but still. Lol --Defiant (talk) 14:56, December 25, 2016 (UTC) The exact dialogue is "but from what I'm told, they swarmed through our system. And when they left, there was little or nothing left of my people", suggesting they were pretty much a one system civilization. It's the kind of thing that's very interesting but also requires very careful wording to convey correctly and without speculation. I always try very hard to do that, and I'm not exactly sure where you believe I failed, but I'm only a fallible human, and if you feel you can do better, by all means improve on it. The attack mode thing was only a forced attempt at lightheartedness, sorry if this wasn't the time for it. -- Capricorn (talk) 15:28, December 25, 2016 (UTC) ::It's fine. It's just that I think it needs clarified that, at one point in history (i.e. not all through their history), they were mostly or all confined to one system. --Defiant (talk) 15:44, December 25, 2016 (UTC) ::Actually, it seems as if the El-Aurian homeworld isn't even specifically mentioned at all in canon; there seems to be just a reference to Guinan's homeworld in , and a mention of "the El-Aurian system" in . Not totally sure, though, as I haven't checked all the episodes. --Defiant (talk) 16:16, December 25, 2016 (UTC) I have pretty thoroughly looked at all the episodes to answer that exact question in the past, and I'm pretty confident that it wasn't. In fact, that was why this page caught my eye in the first place. -- Capricorn (talk) 17:00, December 25, 2016 (UTC) ::Okay. --Defiant (talk) 17:18, December 25, 2016 (UTC) Merge suggestion Since it's recently been pointed out to me that the resource policy states that script info should be sequentially prioritized by script draft, I've totally changed my opinion about this page; I now believe this entry should be at Unnamed planets#Unknown location, with (possibly) a redirect from here. --Defiant (talk) 12:11, February 5, 2017 (UTC) :Support. Including the idea to have this page be a non-canon redirect. -- Capricorn (talk) 17:45, February 6, 2017 (UTC) ::Oppose, the planet is given a name, so it doesn't make sense to put it on the Unnamed planets page when it has a name. (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 00:24, May 4, 2017 (UTC))